Others that have held up well (IMO - some hated them at the time, of course) are 2001 and Solaris.
Oh man. I was 18 when this movie came out. I thought it was THE. BEST. MOVIE. EVAR! for awhile. Re-watched it when I was about 24 and only made it through because I was captivated by how bad it was. It’s such a cringe-inducing, horrible, ham-handed piece of shit. I’m embarassed for recommending it to so many people before re-watching.
I thought of another one.
Jurassic Park
I liked this movie so much when it came out I saw it twice in the theater and I bought a copy. I can’t watch more than 10 minutes of it now. The special effects of the dinosaurs are decent, but the dialog and the acting suck. Laura Dern is the female version of Bill Paxton (wooden), the kids are annoying, and the movie drags. It’s also illogical on a number of levels, but having the kids there is the worst flaw. It makes no sense to have the kids there when Hammond is trying to prove the park to the investor’s lawyer.
The movie is just abrasive. The DVD will be more useful as a coaster, or a Christmas tree ornament.
The book is much better, because Hammond gets eaten instead of surviving.
I’m going to disagree on Jurassic Park. I think that it holds up pretty well. The kids were always stupid and annoying, and a lot of the movie doesn’t make sense if you think about it for ten seconds, but it also moves briskly, has some fantastic scenes, and doesn’t take itself too seriously.
The only things that really pull me out of JP are the computer scenes.
Now, Jurrasic Park 2 wasn’t that great to begin with and is even worse now.
I don’t know. Clueless is one of my favorite movies, but a lot of the 90s humor and catch phrases are very dated now. On the other hand, Fast Times At Ridgemont High remains a classic IMO, mainly due to its enduring characters and themes.
The Kevin Smith movies - Clerks, Mallrats, etc., are other examples of 90s movies that really don’t hold up.
Actually, I think it’s the attitude that being rebellious = being a jerk that has not aged well. A lot of movies from this era have that attitude. I guess appearing to be “sticking it to The Man” by being antisocial was a big deal back then. Nowadays if you REALLY want to be different, stay a virgin until you get married. 
I think when people of the future look at the movies made from the late-1990s to today, they will marvel at their vapidity and lack of deeper meaning.
I think Clerks is still great; Mallrats didn’t hold up to last until the end of my first time watching it.
As opposed to what? Frank Capra? Movies have always been that way. If anything, there’s a bigger market for artistic and foreign cinema now, as more people learn about it through university and the internet.
What kills me about that movie? People laughed at the premise when it came out, and now they talk about doing it for real!
I was watching that last night and was struck by how much of the special effects looked like they came from the same guys who did Godzilla vs Megalon. Except the stop-motion Terminator, which had the same smoothness of motion of a Ray Harryhausen movie (nothing close to a compliment). C’mon, guys, it’s a big-budget movie! You can afford to animate at 24 frames per second! Don’t go cheap and do it at 12fps.
Your last sentence reinforces MY point, which was making a statement, not positing a comparison.
Totally disagree. I’ve watched it many times and it holds up very, very well. Great SF film.
Natural Born Killers. Ye Gods.
I even own a copy on VHS and the only parts of it I can still find watchable are the scenes with Robert Downey Jr which are still a hoot.
“Repetition works, David! Repetition works!”
1915? How old are you?
The problem is that JP was never any good to begin with, really. The animated dinosaur effects were groundbreaking, and still hold up well, but everything else about the movie sucked from day one. I think any differences in perception between “then” and “now” are primarily attributable to how much you actually paid attention to the other stuff, vs. how blown away you were by the dinosaurs.
Suspicion.
I dunno, maybe it was never great.
We rented it recently, and talk about Suspension of Disbelief… You’d have to kidnap your disbelief and hide it in a trunk bound with chains.
The Terminator was actually a very low budget movie. It looked cheap because it cost like a $1.88 to make.
This bothered me too, so I read up on it. Apparently, while they were filming the bus scene, the director was yelling at them the entire time. They were so terrified of making a mistake that they just sat there and stared.
I don’t know if I’d call Terminator a big-budget movie. It had a budget of $6.5 million.
Terminator 2 on the other hand had a budget of $100 million.
I’d agree with virtually the entire John Hughes oeuvre. Only Ferris Bueller holds up even the slightest bit and I still wouldn’t really recommend it to anybody today.
But a little off the beaten path, when I was a High School senior I watched a film in French class called La Balance. I thought it was the shit - totally awesome crime and cops film. Decades later I spot it on DVD and was just thrilled. Another “classic” French film in a style similar to Diva ( which I also first saw in French class and loved ), that blends American-style kineticism with an European POV, finally gets released. I still love Diva. But man, La Balance is just cruddy. It very much looks, feels and sounds like a mediocre episode of Miami Vice transported to Paris.
Deeply disappointing.
You said it much better than I did. Exactly